Trends and Indicators of Taiwan's Higher Education Internationalization

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 18:2 (2009), pp. 185-203

Trends and Indicators of Taiwan’s Higher Education Internationalization Joseph Meng-Ch u n Chin National Chengchi University, Taiwan ROC [email protected] Gregory S. Ch in g Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taiwan ROC [email protected]

The advent of globalization has ushered in an era of internationalization. Whether in the west or in the east, much debate on such processes has been stirring up the academe. Likewise in Taiwan, in order keep up with the pace of the world, measures and changes in both structure and policy are being implemented in all levels. This article is an attempt to discuss the factors behind the internationalization of Taiwan’s higher education. Discussions on global views on local contextual perspectives, concepts on internationalization, and strategies, and rationales behind Taiwan’s internationalization were done. Interviews were conducted with local internationalization officers, internationalization scholars and experts, and international students in Taiwan. Results were then analyzed together with the changing trends and issues on the importance of internationalization, which led to the quest for a set of performance indicators. Finally, an analysis of previous assessment practices and mechanism from both foreign and local sources was done, which culminated in the proposal of a set of performance indicators to measure the internationalization in Taiwan’s higher education institutions. Further studies and test measurement on HEIs’ internationalization using the proposed indicators are urged, in order to gain more insights on the internationalization of Taiwan’s higher education institutions. Keywords: internationalization, Taiwan, higher education, internationalization indicators, performance assessment

The move towards globalization and internationalization have caused striking transformations in the character and functions of education worldwide (Burbules & Torres, 2000; Mok, 2003, 2006a). Changes in international relations coupled with advancement in information technology, expansion of business and commerce, and increasing mobility in the wo rkplace, are

undoubtedly increasing the demand on higher education (Neubauer, 2007). In the last decade, these events have become even more critical, requiring higher education to respond in an intentional and comprehensive way (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Likewise in East Asia, during the past decades, higher education in the island state of Taiwan has also gone through dramatic changes

© 2009 De La Salle University, Philippines

186

THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER

(Mok, 2006b; Song & Tai, 2007). In the year 2000, Taiwan’s go vernment realized t hat globalization has accelerated competition among universities globally (Lo & Weng, 2005; Lu, 2004; Ministry Of Education, 2006c) and thus a series of large scale projects with heavy emphasis on internationalization were launched, in order to catch up with the world in terms of higher education (Song & Tai, 2007). This article is an attempt to discuss the trends and indicators of the internationalization of Taiwan’s Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Global views on local contextual perspectives, concepts on internationalization, strategies, and rationales behind Taiwan’s internationalization, and the roles of HEIs were also discussed. Interviews with foreign and local internationalization administrators and scholars were conducted then analyzed together with the changing trends and issues on the importance of internationalization. Finally, an analysis of previous assessment mechanisms and internationalization practices from both foreign and local sources were done, which culminated in the proposal of a set of performance indicators to measure the internationalization of Taiwan’s HEIs. Taiwan’s higher education and internationalization Internationalization has always been an important concern in the development of higher edu cat io n. Kerr (19 90) ment io ned t hat internationalization is perceived as one of the laws o f mo t io n pro p elling HEIs. In fact , internationalization has been one of the most important trends of the last (Teichler, 1999), and will most probably be one of the major themes in the next decade (Davies, 1997). Internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as t he pro cess o f int egrat ing an international, intercultural, or global dimension, into the purpose, functions or delivery of higher edu cat io n ( Knig ht , 2004 ). I n essence, internationalization has always been part of the fundamentals of HEIs (Scott, 1998).

VOL. 18 NO. 2

At the start of the second millennium, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) published its White Paper on Higher Education Policy in which the low levels of internationalization, lack of financial input, and slow university developments were identified as the key reasons for the deteriorating quality of higher education (MOE, 2006b). Furthermore, Taiwan’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 and the subsequent General Agreements on Trade and Services (GATS) have also highlighted the importance of quality in higher education. As a result, these succeeding events have caused the MOE to co mpel Taiwan’s HE Is t o beco me mo re internationalized (Lo & Weng, 2005; Mok, 2000; Song & Tai, 2007). The level of internationalization is perceived as one of the most important competitive advantages of an institution. As global competition among universities becomes more evident, Taiwan’s MOE is starting to realize the importance of elevating the overall performance of its HEIs in the international academic community, and hence has started several major initiatives aiming to improve the quality of higher education. Table 1 shows the list of major government initiated projects on higher education in Taiwan starting in the year 2000 (Chang, 2005; MOE, 2005, 2006a, 2006c, 2007a, 2007b, 2008b, 2008d) where heavy emphasis on internationalization and the quest for first-class universities can be seen as the two major concerns of the projects. Amidst these challenging times, Chang (2005) of the Bureau of International Cultural and Educational Relations of Taiwan’s MOE mentioned that the answer to global competitions is to obtain an edge in creativity and quality. He further added that the current trend of open educational markets shall lead to fiercer competition in international higher education. Only through diversifying and internationalizing education policy, shall the crisis be turned into an opportunity. This further emphasizes the importance of internationalization in Taiwan’s HE Is and t hus, co nsiders internationalization as one of the major challenges in educational reforms today.

TAIWAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

CHIN, J.M. & CHING, G.

187

Table 1 Government projects on higher education Project

Year

Program for Promoting Academic Excellence of Universities Program to Enhance Fundamental University Education Program to Raise International Competitiveness of Universities Project for University Consolidation and Inter-University Research Center Program to Cultivate Talent in the Science and Technology Departments of Universities Program to Build an Infrastructure for Research-Based Universities Program for Expanding Overseas Student Recruitment Project to Develop First-Class International University Research Centers Project to Encourage Teaching Excellence in Universities Project to Establish University Foreign Language Center Project to Internationalize the Taiwan Studies Program

2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006

Source: Taiwan’s MOE Website – Higher Education Information (http://english.moe.gov.tw)

The need for internationalization indicators Currently, issues regarding rising concerns about the value for money against the high cost of educational goods have altogether changed the way higher education is governed (Welch, 2004). Similarly, the pressure to compete internationally and to attain global recognition has also become one of the major benchmarks in evaluating university performance (Mok, 2003; Song & Tai, 2007). Both public and private educational institutions are being held ever more accountable by stakeholders such as parents, community, and the society itself thus, giving rise to the importance of conducting performance assessments in HEIs (Brennan & Shah, 2000). The Internationalization Quality Review Process (IQRP) of the Organisation for Economic Co -o perat io n and Develo pment (OECD) mentioned that performance assessment is a process where individual institutions of higher education assess and enhance the quality of their international indicators according to their own stated aims and objectives (Knight, 2002; Knight & de Wit, 1999). Similarly, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)

defined performance indicators as a policy relevant statistics, number or qualitative description that provides a measure of whether the university or institution is performing as it should (AUCC, 1995b). Liu (2007) mentioned that in 2002 the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council (HEEACT) was created with the single purpose of conducting university evaluations. Through the administering of evaluations, the HEEACT aims to create an impact on Taiwan’s universities and their teachings, and continue to raise the standard of the entire higher education system (Liu, 2007). The current increased interest in performance assessments in education goes beyond HEIs, MOEs, and the nation itself. Similarly, the focus on performance indicators is not simply a response to local or particular conditions, but simultaneously represents a general issue spanning a diversity of levels and areas. In essence, current trends in performance assessments make use of indicators that are operational units of analysis; a discrete way of measuring the performance of HEIs. Hence, the formation and use of such internationalization performance indicators to measure an institution’s internationalization is appropriate.

188


Research questions The goal of the present study was to examine the trends and indicators of Taiwan’s higher education internationalization. The following questions guided the investigation: 1. What are the strategies used by HEIs in Taiwa n in o r d er t o ac hiev e internationalization? 2. Is there a set of performance indicators to measure HEIs’ internationalization in Taiwan? Methodology This study employed the descriptive research paradigm; a qualitative research that is concerned with how something that exists is related to some preceding event that has influenced or affected a present condition or event. Descriptive research, according to Best (1970) is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist, practices that prevail, beliefs, points of views, or attributes that are held, processes that are ongoing, effects that are being felt; or developing trends. Kvale (1996a) defined qualitative research interviews as an attempt to understand the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experiences, and to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations. Likewise, focus group interviews are among one of the most widely used qualitative research tools in social sciences studies. A probable benefit of this approach is that interviewees may feel greater confidence in a group setting, which may encourage them to offer comments and discuss matters they would not in a one-on-one interview (Axinn & Pearce, 2006). In the present study, individual and focus group interviews were used to gather data which were then transcribed and analyzed using the Miles and Huberman (1994) method which involves noting patterns and themes, clustering items into categories, building logical chains of evidence through noting causality and making inferences, and making conceptual coherence (which are all means

VOL. 18 NO. 2

of reducing what is typically large amount of qualitative data (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Glaser’s (1978) notion of constant comparison was also used in going through the previous internationalization studies, subsuming particulars into generals, and forming similar categories into the proposed internationalization indicators. In addition, triangulation and validation of data was done in all stages of the study, to ensure reliability and generalizability (Kvale, 1996b). Research setting Taiwan’s higher education has experienced a transformation along the line of decentralization and marketization (Mok, 2000). With the revision of the University Act in 1994, which started the restructuring of state owned HEIs into independent legal entities (Mok, 2006a, 2006b) thereby reducing the control of the MOE over HEIs and making campus operations more flexible. In addition, in order to reduce the government’s burden in higher education financing, state owned universities are forced to seek funds from the private sector similar to what is being done by universities in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan (Lo & Weng, 2005). In the years that followed, knowing that the state alone can never satisfy the pressing demand for higher education, the Taiwanese government decided to revise its education ordinances and create room for the expansion of private higher education (Mok, 2000; Mok & James, 2005). This sparked the growth in the number of HEIs over the decades from seven in 1950 to 164 in 2008 (MOE, 2008a). In order to further understand the current situation and the extent of internationalization in Taiwan’s HEIs, an analysis of all the HEIs’ websites was accomplished. Table 2 shows a profile of Taiwan’s HEIs. Data shows that there are currently 164 institutions of higher learning in Taiwan, in which 55 (34%) are government operated, while the rest are private institutions (MOE, 2008a). Among the 164 institutions, around 90 (55%) or are technical or vocational junior colleges; these are institutions that offer five-year junior college and two-year junior college courses to students in


areas such as agriculture, industry, business, maritime studies, marine products, medicine, nursing, home economics, drama, and art (MOE, 2008c). In addition, around 66 HEIs (40%) are typical universities; these are institutions that offer typical undergraduate programs requiring four years of study and specialized undergraduate programs such as dentistry or medicine requiring six to seven years, including an internship period of one year (MOE, 2008c). The remaining 5% or 8 HEIs are normal colleges; these are institutions specialized in teacher education and training (MOE, 2008c). Table 2 also shows that around 29% or 47 of the HEIs have a department or division whose main purpose is to support the internationalization efforts of the institution such as National Chengchi University’s Office of International Cooperation (NCCUOIC, 2008) and Nat io nal Taiwan University’s Office of International Affairs (NTUOIA, 2005). Around 37% or 61 HEIs have a small group of people or some designated persons whose main task is to support the internationalization efforts of the institution. These groups of people are mostly members of the


institutions’ Research and Development (R&D) Division, such as Jinwen University of Science & Technology’s International Cooperation & Exchanges Division (JUST, 2008). The remaining 34% or 56 HEIs, channels their internationalization efforts through other departments or personnel, such as the admissions department or campus liaison offices. However, since the information on the HEIs websites were gathered during the summer of 2008, the institutions’ website might already contain different or additional information, considering that most institutions change or upgrade their websites before the start of a new school year. In any case, during the summer of 2008, all but two of the HEIs have an English version of their website; however, the extent of the availability of information in English varies drastically from the most simple to the very elaborate. Research process and participants The present research was designed as a qualitative study, procedures for data collection and analyses were completed in sequential phases by means of the volunteer and snowball sampling

Table 2 Taiwan’s higher education institutions profile (N=164) Factors Ownership Government (public) Private School type University Junior college Normal college

189

n

%

55 109

34 66

66 90 8

40 55 5

Institutional organizational efforts on internationalization Internationalization affairs center 47 Internationalization office/group 61 None 56

29 37 34

Source: 2008 Educational Statistical Indicators (http://english.moe.gov.tw)

190


VOL. 18 NO. 2

methods. In cases where recruitment of participants is difficult, relying on volunteers and their subsequent recommendations is sometimes inevitable (Cohen et al., 2007; Morrison, 2006; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Data collection was carried out in three phases, one phase for each group of participants. Phase one was for the local internationalization officers, phase two for the internationalization experts and scholars, and phase three for the international students in Taiwan. Similar key questions regarding the internationalization of HEIs in an East Asian context were asked of all the participants. Phase one. After analyzing the HEIs’ websites, a formal letter was sent to all of the HEIs’ internationalization offices and officers. Among the 164 HEIs, a total of 22 internationalization officers respo nded. Table 3 sho ws t hat t he lo cal internationalization officer respondents have an average of 3.36 years of experience in the internationalization efforts of their institutions. Around 41% or 9 of them are working in a government owned HEI, while 59% or 13 are working in the private sector. In addition, 23% or

5 of the respondents are working in schools which are included in the Project to Develop First-Class International University Research Centers; these are selected HEIs that are awarded funds to assist in the improvement of their int ernat ional competitiveness (MOE, 2006c). Core questions on the factors and strategies involved in the internationalization of Taiwan’s HEIs were asked and discussed. After the interview, insights from the respondents were coded and categorized into major trends by seeking common key words and phrases (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Phase two. Individual semi-st ructured interviews with international scholars were conducted during the summer of 2008. A total of 12 international scholars/experts in the field of globalization and internationalization of higher education from Europe, the Americas and Asia were invited for the interview. All of the invited scholars are actively involved in issues like globalization and internationalization of higher education, educational policies, and comparative studies. They are authors and editors of books, have served as editor in academic journals,

Table 3 Local internationalization officers’ profile (N=22) Factors

n

%

Years of experience Ownership Government (public) Private

9 13

41 59

School type University Junior college Normal college

12 10 0

55 45 0

M

SD

3.36

1.33

Min. 2

Max. 6

Included in the Project to Develop First-Class International University Research Centers a Yes 5 23 No 17 77 Note: a For more information on the Project to Develop First-Class International university Research Centers, please see Taiwan’s MOE Website (http://english.moe.gov.tw/ ct.asp?xItem=7131&ctNode=505&mp=1).


conducted researches and studies, and written academic papers in the previously mentioned areas. Being well experienced in both the administrative and teaching functions of higher education, they are also frequently invited as guest speakers and lecturers not only in their home country but in other countries in Asia as well. Of the 12 invited scholars only three replied. Besides the aforementioned qualifications, additional profiles of the interviewees are as follows: Interviewee A, in addition to the more than 40 years of teaching experience, has been the director of the center for international higher education in a United States (US) university for almost 15 years. He is considered one of the most highly quoted and cited scholar in the area of contemporary higher education. Interviewee B on the other hand has more than 35 years of teaching experience; he has been a key officer in the internationalization efforts of a US university for more than 5 years while Interviewee C has more than 10 years of teaching experience. All of the interviewees are current Fulbright scholars, with qualified experiences in internationalization efforts not only in their institutions but in other institutions


in Asia as well. With their exposure to the globalization and internationalization of higher education, the interviewees are considered qualified experts in this field of inquiry. Similar to what was done in phase one, core questions on the factors involved in the internationalization of East Asian HEIs were asked and discussed and after the interview, insights were transcribed and categorized into major trends by seeking common key words and phrases (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Phase three. After the first two phases, individual and focus group interviews were then conducted to gather insights from the international students in Taiwan. The participants consisted of international students coming from two well-known HEIs situated in Taipei City, Taiwan. Posters were used to announce the interview sessions. A total of 35 interviewees coming from 20 countries (Belgium, Brazil, Chile, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Korea, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States) participated in the sessions. Participants’ profiles are summarized in Table 4. The participants have a mean age of 23

Table 4 International student participants’ profile (N=35) Factor

n

%

M

SD

Min.

Max.

4.33 4.58 3.71

18

37

51 49

23.49 22.22 24.82 13.34

9.69

6

48

Agea Male Female

18 17

Duration in Taiwanb 6 months or less 12 months or less 24 months or less More than 24 months

16 6 10 3

46 17 29 8

Program level Undergraduate / College Masters Ph. D.

22 11 2

63 31 6

Note: aAge is in years. b Duration is in months.

191

192


VOL. 18 NO. 2

years old, with the number of males and females being almost equal. Around 54% of the participants have already staying in Taiwan for more than 6 months and therefore they are quite accustomed to the Taiwanese culture and way of life. In addition, around 63% of the participants are college students, with the remaining 37% in graduate schools. The interviews were then transcribed, noting their patterns into themes, and clustering items into cat egories (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Kingdom (UK); Nilsson (2003) for Sweden; Teichler (2004) and Brandenburg and Federkeil (2007) for Germany; Kawaguchi & Lander (1997) and Paige (2005) for Japan; Wang (2006) and Mok (2006b, 2007) for Taiwan. Although it is difficult to make generalizations about the priorities, rationales, and trends in the development of internationalizations in Taiwan’s HEIs based only on their websites, the strategies used are the preferred conditions in having a successful internationalization plan (Rudzki, 1995a). Currently, Taiwan’s MOE has invested a lot of effort into the internationalization of its HEIs, not only with financial resources but also in facilitating educational reforms. The Taiwanese government’s call for first-class universities and subsequent evaluation of HEIs by the HEEACT, have led to the debate on performance indicators which overly emphasize global standards or international benchmarks dominated by AngloSaxon traditions and practices (Lo & Weng, 2005; Mok, 2006a, 2007; Mok, Deem, & Lucas, 2008). In response, an analysis of the previous foreign and local studies on internationalization was done together with the results from the interviews. This was followed by the propo sal of a set of per fo rmance ind icat o rs t o measu re t he internationalization in Taiwan’s HEIs. Table 5 summarizes the resulting themes from Phase one of the study. When asked regarding the fact o rs and st r at eg ies invo lved in t he internationalization of their institution, most local internationalization officers mentioned that having international students and faculties on campus is just the start of being internationalized.

Results and discussion Internationalization is a term being used more and more to discuss the international dimension of higher education. It is a term that means different things to different people and is thus used in a variety of ways (Knight, 2006). While it is encouraging to see the increased use and attention being given to internationalization, there is also the importance of measuring its performance. Currently, there is a great deal of awareness of the significance of performance indicators. In order to have a wider perspective of the formation of Taiwan’s higher education internationalization indicators, various studies from different authors and organizations of multiple contexts were gathered, compared and analyzed together with the interview results. These studies include: Neave (1992a, 1992b) and Knight (2003, 2005) for the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); Hayward (2000), Green and Olson (2003), Siaya and Hayward (2003), Green (2005), and Green, Luu, and Burris (2008) for the American Council on Education (ACE); Marden and Engerman (1992), Ellingboe (1998), Paige and Mestenhauser (1999), Mestenhauser (2002), Paige (2003), and Altbach and Knight (2007) for the United States of America (USA); AUCC (1995a, 1999, 2007) and Bartell (2003) for Canada; Davies (1995, 1997), Knight (1997, 1999), and Knight and de Wit (1995, 1999) for the Organization for Eco no mic Coo perat io n and Develo pment (OECD); Rudzki (1995a, 1995b, 1998) and Ayoubi and Massoud (2007) for the United

There is actually a common misconception that to be internationalized is to have international students and faculties on campus. Having an inter national community on campus is only a part of being internationalized. Internationalization is not achieved overnight; it is the combined effort of the hard work and cooperation of administrators and f a c u l t y. I n a d d i t i o n , s ch o o l s a re currently enhancing their international



193

Table 5 Internationalization indicators suggested by local internationalization officers Administrative leadership commitments Availability of internationalization support system Availability of internationalized courses and foreign language courses Building an internationalized atmosphere on campus Financial support Incentives for international collaborative research for faculty Information accessibility (availability of English version of website) Recruiting international faculties and students Scholarship availability for international students Seeking international partner schools Strategic planning of activities (including periodic self-performance evaluation) Study abroad program

competi tiveness by m eans of internationalized program availability. These are not only programs taught in English, but programs that are internationalized by nature and content, programs like International MBA and comparative course programs (INT1).

Although international students and faculty d o p lay an impo rt ant r o le in achieving internationalization, there is also a need for a firm administrative initiative and strong curriculum program availability. Taiwan’s HEIs are mostly focused on recruiting international students and faculties, and even though these HEIs are starting to offer internationalized programs, the majority of international faculty in Taiwan are still mostly linked with language related course programs. Several studies from the US such as those by Marden and Engerman (1992), Ellingboe (1998), Paige and Mestenhauser (1999), Mestenhauser (2002), and Paige (2003) mentioned that factors such as institutional leadership and organizational sup po rt syst ems ar e cr ucial in at t aining internationalization. In addition, the specifically on the internationalization of the curriculum programs, which is to provide learning opportunities that are, among other things, inter-cultural, inter-disciplinary, comparative, global, and integrative in character (Paige, 2005). Similarly, of faculty and student

involvement in international activities is highly regarded as indicators of internationalization. Besides encouraging our local students to study abroad, the faculty are also encouraged to conduct coll aborative researches with foreign partner schools. What we see is not only an exchange on the student level, but we foresee many other forms of partnership and collaboration at the different levels of the institution, which is why we placed internationalization as one of our top institutional priorities. Planning is done periodica lly. More importantly there should also be funding and suppo rt staff to help i mplement, monitor, and assist in the institution’s internationalization efforts (INT2).

These findings are also highlighted in two global case studies written for UNESCO, in which Neave (1992a, 1992b) developed two paradigmatic models of internationalization: a leadership driven model and a base unit driven model. His models specifically mentio ned t he impo rtance o f administrative structures and strategies planning. Similarly, in studies done by the International Association of Universities (IAU) and the International Universities Bureau of UNESCO, the main focus is on the practices, priorities, issues,

194


and trends related to the international dimension of higher education (Knight, 2003, 2005). More than 66 countries in every region took part in the initial survey in 2003, and around 95 countries in the 2005 survey. Data gathered from the two studies allows for much exploration of specific issues and questions, but more importantly suggested several important indicators such as organizational support systems and institutional policies that are deemed important factors in the internationalizing of HEIs. This is similar to the case of Taiwan, where HEIs are gradually expanding their internationalization support system to an independent division of the institution. Tables 6 and 7 shows the resulting themes from Phases two and three of the study, it is apparent from Table 6 that all of the scholars agreed on six issues namely: internationalization being articulated in the institution’s mission and vision, availability of clear university policy and guidelines to support internationalization, faculty collaboration with colleagues in other countries, international scholars and students on campus, sending local scholars and students abroad, and availability of support systems in terms of funding, infrastructure, and staff. These also coincide with some of the international students’ views on internationalization,

VOL. 18 NO. 2

which are shown in Table 7, such as the availability of an international liaison office/center and the presence of international students and scholars on campus. Internationalization of higher education means tha t there should b e a clear universit y policy to promo te internationalization and an understanding by the administration and faculty supporting internationalization. Appropriate staff members should support internationalization. There should be some international students on e campus and local stu dents should join exchange programs. More importantly, faculty collaboration with colleagues in other countries should be carried out. The nature and extent of these activities will vary according to institution, goals, and resources. Beyond all these, the existence of a monitoring or evaluation system should be present to ensure accountability (INT3).

In the US, the American Council of Education (ACE) has been very active in conducting studies pertaining to internationalization and has been one o f t he mo st influent ial higher ed ucat io n

Table 6 Internationalization indicators suggested by scholars/experts Appropriate staff and resources to support internationalizationab Assessment and accountability mechanism in placebc Articulated in the institution’s Mission/visionabc Clear university policy and guidelines to support internationalizationabc Faculty collaboration with colleagues in other countriesabc International scholars and students on campusabc Internationalized programs (but not limited to use of English as teaching medium)b Professional foreign language programs availabilityb Sending local scholars and students abroadabc Series of planned activities with initiatives being doneab Support systems in terms of funding, infrastructures, and staffabc Note:

a

Mentioned by interviewee A. Mentioned by interviewee B. c Mentioned by interviewee C. b



195

Table 7 Internationalization indicators suggested by international students Availability of an international liaison office/center Extra-curricular, social, and cultural activities in campus International recognition and international academic partners International students and scholars on campus Internationalized courses and programs availability Internet presence (availability of English information in webpage) Strong foreign language course availability (including Mandarin Chinese)

organizations in this area (Paige, 2005). These studies which mentioned six key dimensions of internationalization that are used to measure and distinguish high activity US universities from other, less active institutions (Green, 2005; Green et al., 2008; Green & Olson, 2003), are actually followup studies based on Siaya’s and Hayward’s (2003) and Hayward’s (2000) mapping of US students and higher education internationalization reports. The key dimensio ns include: art iculat ed commitment, academic offerings, organizational infrastructure, external funding, institutional investment in faculty, and international students and student programs. In addition, Altbach and Knight (2007) underscored the importance of including a mechanism for accountability, monitoring, and evaluation of internationalization efforts, which confirmed Mestenhauser ’s (2002) earlier suggestion. The AUCC (1995a, 1999, 2007) also identified institutional and academic policies, research and collaborative opportunities, and internationalized curriculum as some of the key dimensions in the internationalization of Canadian HEIs. The AUCC (1995b) further mentioned that performance indicators are best used to gauge the performance of a system, university, or structure or process within an institution. These indicators should be problem-oriented and policy-relevant so that decisions can be made to improve university education. Progress and improvement in the delivery of education is the ultimate benchmark. Bartell (2003) also highlighted the importance of the existing culture within an institution, which

emphasizes institutional commitments and strategic planning. In Europe, Davies (1995, 1997) based his model of internationalization strategies on the need for universities to develop a framework for their international activities in response to the changes in their environment. He suggested the importance of an institutional mission, evaluation and assessment, and the presence of an organizational leadership structure. Knight and de Wit (1995) identified four categories, research, academic, technical development, and extra-curricular activities, as key internationalization dimensions. However Knight (1997, 1999) later revised these into academic programs, research and scholarly collaboration, external relations & services, and extra-curricular activities. These dimensions were then later expanded and used as standards in the Internationalisation Quality Review Process’s (IQRP) report on OECD countries’ HEIs internationalization status (Knight, 2002; Knight & de Wit , 1999). Furthermore, additional studies conducted by Rudzki (1995a, 1995b, 1998); Ayoubi and Massoud (2007) in the United Kingdom (UK), Nilsson (2003) in Sweden, Teichler (2004), and Brandenburg and Federkeil (2007) in Germany, were all taken into consideration, and various samples and models from HEIs summarized and analyzed. In addition, during the focus group sessions in Phase three, many mentioned the importance of the availability of an English version of the HEI websites.

196


The international liaison office is a great help, whenever I have some problems they don’t hesita t e t o h el p m e. T hey a l s o sponsored a lot of inter-cultural activities, such as sports games, food festivals, and many others. However, with regard to the s ch o o l ’s web s i t e, I s u g g es t t h a t t h e s ch o o l u p d a t e t h ei r E n g l i s h web s i t e regularly. I usually have a hard time getting the information that I need. I understand that English is not Taiwan’s f i r s t l a n g u a g e, b u t a t t h e l ea s t , in for mat io n relevan t t o int ern ational students should be available in the website (FGT1).

Efforts in East Asia were also noted in studies done by Kawaguchi & Lander (1997) and Paige (2005) in Japan, while Wang (2006) and Mok (2006b, 2007) in Taiwan. Finally, each of the 37 mentioned studies was carefully analyzed, while taking note of the internationalization indicators implied. In summary, Table 8 shows a cross-tabulation of all the previous mentioned 37 studies on internationalization together with the results from the interviews, in comparison to the proposed higher education internationalization indicators. From the previously reviewed studies, numerous aspects of internationalization were noted and organized. Many of the studies mentioned different dimensions that are over-lapping and similar but categorized differently. Authors tend t o add co nt ext , and s imilar it ie s an d commonalities across regions and organizations were observed. Additional analysis of such similarities and commonalities in contrast to their locality and culture may be able to justify further clarification, but is beyond the scope of this study. Ho wever, o bservat io ns clearly sho w t he consistency of identifying curriculum contents, faculty involvement, and study abroad programs as the major focus of internationalization. In addition, the recent growing concerns on institutional commitments, strategic planning, and performance evaluation were also observed in recent studies.

VOL. 18 NO. 2

Indicators of Taiwan’s higher education internationalization The proposed internationalization indicators of Taiwan’s higher education are composed of 12 dimensions. These indicators are the synthesized findings from the 37 reviewed studies, combined with the results from the interviews. The indicators are: institutional commitments, strategic planning, funding, institutional policy and guidelines, organizational infrastructure and resources, academic offerings and curriculum, internet presence, facult y and st aff development , international students and scholars, study abroad, campus life, and performance evaluation and accountability. Institutional commitments are articulated dedications to internationalization efforts, such as inclusion in the mission & vision statements, and reiteration in the institution’s prospectus or student recruitment literature (Green, 2005; Green et al., 2008). This also refers to the support provided by top administrative leadership, which is critical to the success of the institution’s internationalization efforts (Davies, 1995, 1997; Ellingboe, 1998; Neave, 1992a, 1992b). In addition, the institution’s efforts in joining HEIs organization whether locally or internationally are also included. Strategic planning refers to the long term and short term plans for the internationalization of the institution at the department, faculty, and student levels. This includes an internationalization timeline, which highlights plans to establish branches and seek partners with both academic community and private industry. A good strategic plan is an indispensable part of internationalization (Paige, 2005). Strategic plans should be based on the institution’s mission, goals, or objectives. It should also serve as a rallying standard internally, and indicate external constituencies (Davies, 1995, 1997). Funding represents the effo rt t hat the inst it ut io ns put fort h to seek funds from organizations, government and other private entities specifically earmarked for internationalization activities.

UNESCO UNESCO

Japan Japan Ta iwan Ta iwan

Kawaguchi & Lander (1997) Pa ige (200 5) Wa ng (200 6) Mok (20 06 , 2 00 7)

X X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X X X X

X X

Note: ‘X’ signifies that the indicator is included or mentioned in the involved study.

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X X X

X

X X X

X X

X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X

X

X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

P e rfo r Orga niza - Curriculum Faculty & I n t e r Institu ma n ce ti on a l Study I nt er ne t & Staff na tiona l Ca mpus Evalu ati on a l Funding Infrastruc- Academic Presence Deve lop- Students & Abroad Li fe Policy & tion & tu re & Prog ra m Offerings men t Scholars Guidelines Acco u ntResources ability


Loca l internationa liza tion officers International scholars International stu dents

Interview results

Asia

OECD OECD OECD OECD UK UK Sweden Germa ny Germa ny

Davies (19 95, 19 97) Knight & de Wit (1995) Knight (19 97 , 1 99 9) Knight & de Wit (1999) Rudzki (1995a, 1995b, 1998) Ayoubi & Massoud (2007) Nilsson (2 003) Teichler (20 04 ) Brandenburg & Federkeil (2007)

OECD & Europe

AC E AC E AC E AC E AC E USA USA USA USA USA USA Canada Canada

ACE, USA & Canada

Hayward (2000) Green & Olson (2003) Siaya & Hayward (2003) Green (200 5) Green, Luu, & Burris (2008) Ma rden & Engerman (199 2) Ellingboe (1 998) Paige & Mestenhauser (19 99) Mestenha user (2 00 2) Pa ige (200 3) Altbach & Knight (20 07) AUCC (1995a, 1999, 2007) Bartell (2 003)

Neave (1992a, 1 992b) Knight (20 03 , 2 00 5)

Author/s (Year)

Sponsor / Institutional Strategic C om m it - Pla nning Region m en t s

Interna tionaliza tion Dimensions

Table 8 Cross-tabulation of related studies with the proposed Taiwan’s higher education internationalization indicators

TAIWAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION 197

198


VOL. 18 NO. 2

Institutional policy and guidelines include faculty policies and guidelines regarding hiring, rewards, sanctions, and codes of conduct. In addition, it includes students’ policies & guidelines regarding admission, rewards, sanctions, and opportunities. The focus of institutional policy and guidelines is to ensure equality with regard to opportunity and benefits among local and international students and scholars alike. Org anizatio nal infrastructu re a nd resources refers to t he availabilit y of an internationalization support system. This includes physical facilities, such as office spaces, human resources, such as professionals and staff, and communication and technological resources. The presence of professional staff and personnel respo nsible fo r sp ecific aspect s o f internationalization is seen as highly important in achieving internationalization. In many countries, internationalization activities are now recognized as highly specialized activities that require professional staff with proper academic training and years of international education experience (Paige, 2005). Academic offerings and curriculum has been considered as one of the most important aspects of internationalization efforts. Almost all of the previous studies have mentioned the importance of internationalized academic programs. Efforts regarding the availability of professional language courses and the presence of people responsible for internationalization curriculum development are key indicators in this dimension. Internet presence refers to the availability of important information in the institution’s website. This includes links to an international liaisons office or foreign student admission office, bilingual information regarding important dates, fees, and news, and clear information on admission requirements, together with programs and course offerings easily located in the institution’s webpage. This dimension is quite important to an East-Asian nations, which do not speak English as a first language. In order to attract international students, accessible bilingual information is a must.

Faculty and staff development refers to the availability of support given to local personnel regarding collaboration, researches, conferences, and other internationalization- related activities. According to Green (2005), faculty involvement is the key to internationalization. The school faculty have the most direct contact with students and are responsible for the curriculum. In addition, the classroom remains the primary means of exposing students to international issues, events, and cultures. This dimension measures the professional development opportunities available to faculty and staffs, which help them increase their international skills and knowledge. International students and scholars is the availability of funds, scholarships, housing, office spaces, facilities and other support systems. This also includes language partners for international students, which helps newcomers, settle down easily, and also helps promote inter-cultural activities. Study abroad is the availability of academic and non-academic travels and options for travel subsidy, orientations, and a facility for sharing of students’ experiences in the campus. Campus life refers to the availability of academic and extra-curricular activities geared towards internationalized themes, presence of a campus life office and officer, and the availability of organizations or clubs with internationalized theme. This dimension is focused on making the campus life of both local and international students and scholars more accessible and comfortable. Performance evaluation and accountability refers to a monitoring system that is in place, where both internal and external performance evaluations are done. A committee involved in the reporting and making recommendations for t he imp r o ve me nt o f t h e in st it u t io n’s internationalization efforts should be formed and whose task is to look for research and studies being done regarding internationalization. This dimension is focused on the importance of assessing and enhancing the quality of the institution’s international dimension, according to their stated aims and objectives.


CONCLUSION The rush towards globalization is drastically changing the role of HEIs worldwide. The growing importance of accountability coupled with the intensification of competition among universities not only locally but also globally, has unquestionably driven universities to perform. In the last decade, university performance has drawn increasing attention from the public; hence university ranking and international benchmarking are becoming more central in university governance. In order to enhance their global competitiveness, governments in East Asia have started comprehensive reviews of their higher education systems and research performance has become the most determining factor in resource allocation. In addition, all the East Asian go vernment s have placed internationalization of higher education at the top of their education reform agenda. Therefore, it is not surprising that internationalization processes and strategies are becoming increasingly popular, with internationalization performance assessments consistently emphasized. This study examined attempts and efforts regarding HEIs internationalization with the goal of proposing a set of performance indicators. These indicators are the results of individual and focusgroup interviews with local internationalization officers, international experts and scholars, and international students in Taiwan; analyzed together with performance indicators proposed by other studies. A total of twelve indicators were proposed namely: Institutional commitments, strategic planning, funding, institutional policy and guidelines, organizational infrastructure and resources, academic offerings and curriculum, internet presence, faculty and faculty development, international students and scholars, study abroad, campus life, and performance evaluation and accountability. In closing, performance indicators are best interpreted as investigative or suggestive rather than as objective and absolute facts. Therefore, it is also useful to have multiple indicators and multi-method approaches in assessing progress


199

towards institutional internationalization goals and objectives. It is however appropriate to be open-minded, skeptical and cautious when interpreting performance indicators. While this study is still in its early stages, further studies and test measurement on HEIs’ internationalization using the proposed indicators are urged. Results of actual assessments shall be beneficial to both the administration and students, in terms of program evaluat ion, suggestions and insights, and policy improvement, and will t hu s co nt r ibu t e t o t he enhanceme nt o f internationalization efforts.

REFERENCES Altbach, P. G. (2000). What higher education does right: A millennium accounting. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http:// www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ News18/text1.html Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290305. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (1995a). Internationalization and Canadian universities.: The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (1995b). A primer on performance indicators. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from htt p://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/ p u blic a t io ns/ r e se a r c hfile / 1 9 9 5 - 9 6/ vol1n2_e.pdf. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (1999). Towards a more global campus: Internationalization initiatives of Canadian universities. Asso ciat ion of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2007). Internationalizing Canadian campuses. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

200


Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ayoubi, R. M., & Massoud, H. K. (2007). The strategy of internationalization in universities A quantitative evaluation of the intent and imp lement at io n in UK univer sit ies. Internation al Journal of Educati onal Management, 21(4), 324-349. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45, 43-70. Best, J. W. (1970). Research in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brandenburg, U., & Federkeil, G. (2007). How to mea sure int ern atio nali ty a nd internationalisation of higher education institutions: Indicators and key figures. Berlin, Germany: Centre for Higher Education Development. Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An i nternational perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham, UK: Organisation fo r E c o n o mic C o - o p er at io n an d Development, Society for Research into Higher Education, and Open University Press. Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge. Chang, Q. S. (2005). Internationalization of higher education from the perspective of globalization. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http://english.education.edu.tw/ct.asp? xItem=7166&ctNode=512&mp=12. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. Davies, J. L. (1995). University strategies for internationalisation in different institutional and cultural settings: A conceptual framework. In P. Blok (Ed.), Policy and policy implementation in internationalisation of higher education (pp. 3-18). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

VOL. 18 NO. 2

Davies, J. L. (1997). A European agenda for change for higher education in the XXIst century: Comparative analysis of twenty institutional case studies CRE-action, 111, 4792. Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results, resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a US university. In J. A. Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp. 198-228). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Green, M. F. (2 005) . Measuring internationalization at research universities. Washingt on, DC: American Co uncil on Education. Green, M. F., Luu, D. T., & Burris, B. (2008). Map ping int erna tion alizatio n on US Campuses: 2008 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M. F., & Olso n, C. ( 2003 ). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hayward, F. M. (2000). Internationalization of US higher education: Preliminary status report 2000. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Jinwen University of Science and Technology. (2008). International cooperation and exchanges division. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://rd.just.edu.tw/files/13-10042873.php Kawagu chi, A., & Land er, D. ( 1997 ). Internationalization in practice in Japanese universities. Higher Education Policy, 10, 103-110. Kerr, C. (1990). The internationalisation of learning and the nationalisation of the purposes of higher education: Two “Laws of Motion” in conflict? European Journal of Education, 25, 5-22.


Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in A s i a P a c i f i c co u n t r i e s . Amst er d a m: Euro pean Asso ciat io n of Int ernat ional Education. Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: IMHE/OECD. Knight, J. (2002). Developing an institutional self-portrait using the internationalization q u a l i t y re vi ew p ro ce ss g u i d e l i n e s. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http:// www.provost.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0011/88193/APPENDIX_F.pdf. Knight, J. (2003). Internationalization of higher education practices and priorities: 2003 IAU survey report. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. Knight, J. (2005). Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges. The 2005 IAU global survey report. Paris, Fr ance: Int ernat io nal Asso ciat io n o f Universities. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In J. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 345-396). Netherlands: Springer. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5-32). Amsterdam: European Associatio n for Internatio nal Education. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality a n d i n t e rn a t i o n a l i za t i o n i n h i g h er


201

education. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Kvale, S. (1996a). Interviews: An introduction to qual itat ive research int ervi ewin g. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kvale, S. (1996b). Interviews. London: Sage. Liu, W. C. (2007). Message from the chairman. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http:// www.heeact.edu.tw/ Lo, Y. W., & Weng, F. Y. (2005). Taiwan’s responses to globalization: Internationalization of higher education. In K. H. Mok & R. James (Eds.), Globalization and higher education in East Asia (pp. 137-156). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic. Lu, M. L. (2 004) . Th e b luep rin t a nd competi tiveness of Taiwan’s hig her education. Paper presented at the Cross Strait Seminar on Review and Prospect of the Policy of University Excellence. Marden, P. G., & Engerman, D. C. (1992). International interest: Liberal arts colleges take the high road. Educational Record, 73(2), 4246. Mestenhauser, J. A. (2002). In search of a comprehensive approach to international education: A systems perspective. In W. Grünzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rocking in red squ are: Cri tica l ap proa ches to international education in the age of cyberculture (pp. 165-208). Muenst er, Germany: LIT Verlag. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ministry Of Education. (2005). Higher education. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http:// english.mo e.go v.t w/ct.asp?xIt em=7138 &ctNode=505&mp=2. Ministry Of Education. (2006a). Learning foreign languages - The foundation for internationalization. Retrieved October 26, 2008, fro m ht t p://english.mo e.go v.t w/ ct.asp?xItem=7019&ctNode=505&mp=2. Minist r y Of Edu cat io n. (200 6b). Ma in educational archives - White paper on

202


VOL. 18 NO. 2

university education policy [In Chinese]. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http:// history.moe.gov.tw/important.asp?id=37. Ministry Of Education. (2006c). Plan to develop first-class universities and top-level research centers. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http:// english.mo e.go v.t w/ct.asp?xIt em=7131 &ctNode=505&mp=1. Ministry Of Education. (2007a). Conference to ann ounce accomp lish ment s in int ernationalization of universities and the university f oreign language center in northern Taiwan. Retrieved October 25, 2008, fro m ht t p://english.mo e.go v.t w/ ct.asp?xItem=8557&ctNode=505&mp=2. Ministry Of Education. (2007b). New standard for university teaching. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ ct.asp?xItem=7309&ctNode=505&mp=2. Minist r y Of Edu cat io n. (200 8a). 20 08 Educational statistical indicators. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ lp. as p?ct No de= 816&Ct Unit =507 &BaseDSD=7&mp=1. Ministry Of Education. (2008b). “Achievements of the teaching excellence project and the tea chin g resource center” combi ned exhibition. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from h t t p : / / e n g lis h. mo e . g o v. t w / ct.asp?xItem=9512&ctNode=505&mp=2. Ministry Of Education. (2008c). The educational system. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=4133 &CtNode=2003&mp=1. Ministry Of Education. (2008d). “Taiwan studies” internationalized. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ ct.asp?xItem=9376&ctNode=512&mp=2. Mok, K. H. (2000). Reflecting globalization effects on local policy: Higher education reform in Taiwan. Journal of Education Policy, 15(6), 637-660. Mok, K. H. (2003). Similar trends, diverse agendas: Higher education reforms in East Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(2), 201-221.

Mok, K. H. (2006a). Education reform and education policy in East Asia. New York: Routledge. Mok, K. H. (2006b, January). Questing for internationalization of universities in East Asia: Critical reflections. Paper presented at the International Symposium, Osaka University, Japan. Mo k , K. H. (2 007, No vember) . In ternationalizing and international-benchmarking of universities in East Asia: Producing world cl ass universi ty o r reprod ucin g neoimperialism in education? Paper presented at the Realizing the Global University: Critical Perspectives Workshop, London. Mok, K. H., Deem, R., & Lucas, L. (2008, February). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the “World-Class” university in Europe and Asia. Paper presented at the CERC Annual Conference 2008, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Mok, K. H., & James, R. (Eds.). (2005). Globalization and higher education in East Asi a. Sing apo r e: Marshall Cavendish Academic. Mok, K. H., & Welch, A. (Eds.). (2003). Globalization and educational restructuring in the Asia Pacific region. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Morrison, K. R. B. (2006). Sensitive educational research in small states and territories: The case of Macau. Compare, 36(2), 249264. Nat io nal ChengChi Universit y Office o f International Cooperations. (2008). Center of international education and exchange. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http:// www.iee.nccu.edu.tw/english/modules/news/. Neave, G. (1992a). Institutional management of higher education: Trends, needs and strategies for co-operation. Unpublished International Association of Universities document for UNESCO, Paris. Neave, G. (1992b). Managing higher education international co-operation: Strategies and


solutions. Unpublished Reference document for UNESCO, Paris. Neubauer, D. (2007). Globalization and education - Characteristics, dynamics, implications. In P. D. Hershock, M. Mason & J. N. Hawkins (Eds.), Changing education - Leadership innovation and development in a globalizing Asia Pacific (pp. 29-62). Ho ng Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre Springer. Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 27-40. Nat io n al Taiwa n Un iv e r s it y Office o f International Affairs. (2005). Office of international affairs. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.ciae.ntu.edu.tw/ english.asp. Paige, R. M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 52-63. Paige, R. M. (2005). Internationalization of higher education: Performance assessment and indicat ors. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 5, 99-122. Paige, R. M., & Mestenhauser, J. A. (1999). Internationalizing educational administration. Education Administration Quarterly, 35, 500-517. Rudzki, R. (1995a). The application of a strategic management model to the internationalization of hig her educat io n inst it ut io ns. Hi gh er Education, 29(4), 421-441. Rudzki, R. (1995b). Internationalisation of UK business schools: Findings of a national survey. In P. Blo k ( Ed.) , Po licy an d p oli cy implementation in internationalisation of higher education (pp. 421-441). Amsterdam: European Associatio n for Internatio nal Education.


203

Rudzki, R. (1998). The strategic management of internationalization: Towards a model of theory and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Scott, P. (1998). Massification, internationalization and globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 108129). Buckingham, UK. Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washingt on, DC: American Co uncil on Education. Song, M. M., & Tai, H. H. (2007). Taiwan’s responses to globalisation: Internationalisation and questing for world class. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3), 323-340. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus g roup s - Theory an d practi ce. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Teichler, U. (1999). Internationalisation as a challenge for higher education in Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 5, 523. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5-26. Wang, S. Y. (2006). Internationalization of university in Taiwan and the tendency of the world [In Chinese]. Taipei: NIOERAR. Welch, A. (200 4). Acco unt abilit y o r accountability? Governance and university evaluation systems in an era of performativity. COE Publication Series, 11, 117-138.